What’s more, no one has tested whether violinists themselves can truly pick up the supposedly distinctive sound of a Strad. The common wisdom is that they can, but Fritz and Curtin showed that this isn’t true. “Many people were convinced that as soon as you play an old violin, you can feel that it’s old, it’s been played a lot, and it has a special sound quality,” says Fritz. “People who took part in the experiment said it was the experience of a lifetime when we told them the results. They were fully convinced they could tell the difference, and they couldn’t.”

Having read the article first in the German "der spiegel", I do not have to wait for the usual excuse of those that will maintain those listening tests were done wrong, the wrong violins were chosen etc.etc., all the usual bull those of the golden ear persuasion come up with to not have to accept test results that speak counter to their religion that "everything influences sound and everything is audible".

QUOTE

The test was a true “double-blind” one, as neither the players nor the people who gave them the violins had any way of knowing which instrument was which. The room was dimly lit. The players were wearing goggles so they couldn’t see properly. The instruments had dabs of perfume on the chinrests that blocked out any distinctive smells. And even though Fritz and Curtin knew which the identities of the six violins, they only passed the instruments to the players via other researchers, who were hidden by screens, wearing their own goggles, and quite literally in the dark.

It seems to me reading through the article, that just about everything had been done to eliminate bias by double blind testing.

QUOTE

There are some issues with the study. Curtin, being a maker of new violins, has an obvious bias, but the double-blind design should have prevented that from affecting the results. The sample size – six violins and 21 players – is fairly small, but as large as can be expected when dealing with rare and incredibly expensive objects. There might also other variables that could affect the players’ perceptions – perhaps, for example, they might feel differently in rooms with different acoustics.

So once one learns how to play on a certain instrument, it becomes that much harder to become familiar with another? Your "reverse learning curve" theory is fascinating. If that makes sense to you, please stay away from sharp objects and cliffs because your sense is a bit off.

Glad to see your proof that the newer violins tested were made objectively easier to play, keeping in mind that you are contradicting your apparent belief that the old violins sound better than newer ones (implying that we have not improved or have lost our ability to make the best violins) with a claim that "centuries of development" have led to inevitable improvements in making instruments easier to play, bust somehow not better sounding. I will completely ignore for the moment the illogic of luthiers generally focusing their expertise to make the best violins easier to play rather than making them better-sounding, but for now I will be satisfied if you prove this claim as well. If you think the violins tested were intended for "n00bs", then I again recommend staying away from sharp objects and cliffs.